From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [Lsf] IO less throttling and cgroup aware writeback (Was: Re: Preliminary Agenda and Activities for LSF) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 11:58:41 +1000 Message-ID: <20110408015841.GV31057@dastard> References: <20110331141637.GA11139@redhat.com> <20110331222756.GC2904@dastard> <20110401171838.GD20986@redhat.com> <20110401214947.GE6957@dastard> <20110405131359.GA14239@redhat.com> <20110405225639.GB31057@dastard> <20110406153715.GA18777@redhat.com> <20110406160805.GC18777@redhat.com> <20110406171017.GA28689@quack.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Vivek Goyal , James Bottomley , lsf@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Jan Kara Return-path: Received: from ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.129]:3426 "EHLO ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757347Ab1DHB6r (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Apr 2011 21:58:47 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110406171017.GA28689@quack.suse.cz> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 07:10:17PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > On Wed 06-04-11 12:08:05, Vivek Goyal wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 11:37:15AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > Well, I wouldn't bother too much with kswapd handling. MM people plan to > get rid of writeback from direct reclaim and just remove the dirty page > from LRU and recycle it once flusher thread writes it... kswapd is not in the direct reclaim path - it's the background memory reclaim path. Writeback from direct reclaim is a problem because of stack usage, and that problem doesn't exist for kswapd. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com